On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 09:59:02PM +0200, Marcus Wolf wrote:> > Hi Simon, hi Dan,> > if you both are of the same opinion, for me, it's fine, if we go with two> functions.> > But I don't get the advantage, if we split approx. 10 functions, to get rid> of enum optionOnOff.> > Keep in mind, that if you split the functions, in the interface> implementation you also need more code:> > SET_CHECKED(rf69_set_sync_enable(dev->spi, rx_cfg->enable_sync));> > will have to be converted in something like> > if (rx_cfg->enable_sync)> SET_CHECKED(rf69_set_sync_enbable(dev->spi);> else> SET_CHECKED(rf69_set_sync_disable(dev->spi);

I think that this makes the code very clear. If the config tells us toenable the sync then we'll enabled it, otherwise we'll disable it.

> > For me, it is important, that the configuration, you'll have to write in the> user space program (aka fill out the config struct) will be 100%> non-ambigious and easy to read.> > Cheers,> Marcus